Friday, June 4, 2010

The Reality of Health Care Reform

This video was passed on by my cousin, Gen, of Fight Club fame.  I've watched several of this guy's videos and I think he is on to something good here.  Just a regular guy, talkin' common sense.  Take a  look!

You can check out more of Sean Croxton's stuff at  It just may be good for you!


  1. Hear hear! Whole foods, exercise, and the pursuit of happiness! Also drugs should be the last option, not the first!

  2. Thanks for posting! If only more people could share that sentiment... we'd be a much healthier society, much to the chagrin of the drug companies!

  3. Ya know, when I saw the title I was a little reluctant to press play. I'm glad I did watch it though. It was well thought out and a pretty neat perspective on personal health.
    What I fail to understand though, is why people love to bash "drug companies"?

  4. Hi Joe,
    I am glad you liked the video and posted a comment! Drug companies, and drugs are not all inherently bad-- in fact, they have a very important place in our health care-- especially in critical care or chronic illness situations. Many of us (including yours truly) would not be here today if it were not for critical care and drug intervention. I think that the problem comes in from how they go about marketing and lobbying to make gigantic profits. The US and Australia are the only countries that allow drug companies to market and advertise directly to the public (think about all of those drug ads you see on TV ). Which begs the question of "Why?" You can find out more Big Pharma rankings here (if you're interested):

    Also, there is a school of thought that the drug companies knowingly profit from keeping people sick--treating symptoms vs. eliminating the root causes of diseases and illnesses. Perhaps it is a conspiracy theory, but one that needs more attention and scrutiny.

  5. I see. I just don’t have a problem with companies making big profits. I’m no insider but I’m sure it costs pharma’s billions of dollars to research, create and test these drugs which are potentially life-saving. While I agree with the premise of this video – that we should all do some very basic things to improve our own health, rather than take a pill for every ill – I can’t fault the entrepreneurial spirit of a chemist who wants to try to help me lose weight, quit smoking, treat cancer etc.
    And what could possibly be the argument against allowing a company to advertise its product? The only thing that annoys me is that they are required to list all the possible side effects at the end of the commercial. The last car commercial I saw didn't end with a warning of the possible side effects of excessive speed. If I invent a new gadget that makes peoples’ lives better, I darn well want the ability to advertise it. This is still America, after all.
    The real crime here, as I see it, is the crazy “supplement” industry. Pharma haters have generated so many law suits that in order to sell a new drug, these companies have to do years of research and testing before releasing a product. All the while, the market is being flooded by crackpots marketing all kinds of drugs under the “safe” umbrella of vitamins and supplements. The following can be found on
    “Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed.”
    I have spent countless hours researching the potential side effects of many “safe” supplements, available at the local whole foods store, only to find out that they are legion, and not posted anywhere on the packaging of the product (unlike FDA regulated drugs). Me – I’d much sooner trust my doctor and the pharma who spent the time and money to do the research. I may grumble about the copay or the cost but in the end, I’ll pay the bill and take my medicine.

  6. Hi Joe!

    You make some excellent points about the high cost of research, and that somehow that needs to be absorbed, and is ultimately passed on to the consumer. And I see your point about the supplement industry and I would agree that supplements should somehow be standardized to ensure their safety and efficacy, regardless of their manufacturer.

    On the flip side, however, there needs to be an element of common sense applied with regard to drugs or supplements. Anything taken in excess or to the extreme is potentially dangerous or toxic. If you eat or drink too much of anything, you're bound to get sick, or addicted, or harmed in some way. Plus, many supplements have been around long before "modern" medicine came into play, and have been used successfully for centuries. So in that regard, they have been tried and tested-- just not by our government or regulating agencies.

    In addition, it would seem that when there is a new drug discovery, there is a rush to get it to market as soon as possible to patent it and begin profiting from its use (from the drug companies, not necessarily the scientists or chemists who are doing the actual research). I believe that this process is inherently flawed as indicated by the increasing number of drug recalls. That is not to say that supplements are never recalled, however, I would argue that the recall list for drugs is growing at a faster rate than that for supplements. So perhaps it is the drugs that need more extensive testing?

    Some sites to check out: (Also part of the FDA...)

    To your point about having to pay the copay and the price-- maybe we need to be paying more for drugs so Big Pharma can take the time to get it right?

    It is definitely food for thought. And on that note, I think it all goes back to root cause and prevention. And it's great to live in such a place where we have the freedom and access to information to educate ourselves to make the best possible choices for our heath and well being.

    Again, I am not against drugs.

  7. Amy,
    Interesting thoughts about drug recalls. Definitely an important point to consider. My uneducated guess as to the reason behind a potential rush to market is:
    1) The corporate desire to start earning returns on a big investment
    2) The concern over possible corporate espionage and intellectual theft
    Of course, these are purely my conjecture as I have never researched this aspect of pharmaceuticals. Neither of these possible explanations is an excuse for sending a bad or dangerous product to market.
    Thanks Aim!